I mean... witchwarper is the extreme example. Just about every other class can be built to be pretty great. And the wtichwarper won't be that far behind. Other than maybe the mechanic, who tends to be completely overshadowed by the operative.
What is it with the classes in this system. When I look at a class I get an image in my mind of a bunch of devs sitting around a table coming up with really cool ideas. And when they are all done they high five. Then the head powergamer comes in, slams a gavel down on the table and screams "WE NEED MOAR POWER!" Operative is a prime example. I mean.. what? Why?
P.S. Please stop overtuning all the fun into the ground. Thanks.
I mean... witchwarper is the extreme example. Just about every other class can be built to be pretty great. And the wtichwarper won't be that far behind. Other than maybe the mechanic, who tends to be completely overshadowed by the operative.Seems like any class with the Int key ability score + the operative overshadows everyone else when it comes to roleplay and skill checks. Last time I played a soldier in the group we did 70% roleplay and I was really bored. Anything I could do they could do far better.
Yeah the Witchwarper is the extreme example to be sure, as far as being nerfed but compared to pathfinder and d&d they just all feel lackluster. Anywho. Not trying to start arguments here. Just feels like a lot of the classes need love and less nerf right out of the gates. I like my players to feel like heroes, not regular people. And I do modify the rules and classes a lot to supplement that but it would be nice to not have to.
If you aren't into roleplay, you aren't into roleplay, the other classes being better at skill checks won't fix the problem you ran into with a soldier.
And... no feeling like heroes? Both groups I've run through campaigns could mop the floor with the enemies they faced. I just had a level 10 solarian stand toe to toe with a CR13. Sure, they went to single digit hit points before the enemy fell, but the character was pretty good at being a hero.
The technomancers, soldier, mystic, other solarians, and even the envoy have all had big damn hero moments enabled by their class abilities in combat.
In my experience the classes work perfectly fine (possibly minus the witchwarper) They don't need to be unnerfed, they've mostly hit a sweet spot. With the exception of the witchwarper and operatives skill abilities.
One thing to keep in mind about the complaints of "lackluster" character options: Starfinder is designed from the ground up to run in a tighter range of math than 3.x/PF1. Apart from the operative (which is widely acknowledged as being better than pretty much any other class when it comes to skills*), classes are deliberately designed to stay at around the same effectiveness. Even a "non-specialist" (a class that doesn't automatically gain a bonus via class features) can, with a relatively small level of investment (theme, some advancements, one or two skills, possibly race), get within +5 of most specialists until very high levels.
*- other than some narrow exceptions focusing on one or two skills
Seems like any class with the Int key ability score + the operative overshadows everyone else when it comes to roleplay and skill checks. Last time I played a soldier in the group we did 70% roleplay and I was really bored. Anything I could do they could do far better.
For a soldier, starting with a 12 (or 13) Int, throwing a couple +2 advancements at 5th, 10th, and/or 15th, and using a couple feats (since you're getting all of those bonus combat feats every even level) for Skill Synergy (to add more class skills) and Skill Focus (to add +3 on skill checks) would help you from being "really bored" vs. the "big, dumb fighter" stereotype with 10 Int, no advancements to Int, and no skill boost feats.
I have no problem with roleplaying, as you've suggested. But saying that a soldier can stand toe to toe with an Int key ability score class or an operative when it comes to skill checks is ridiculous.
Find a skill with a different attribute to concentrate on. Athletics is an obvious choice, but survival and sense motive with a decent wisdom and a skill focus or specialist training should let you do well in a different niche. (assuming you don't have a survivalist operative)
But it does feel to me that some classes don't need to pick at what they are good at. They can be good at both combat and skill checks without having to compromise.
The operative is overtuned for skills. They are the jack of all skills, master... of all skills. Neither being good at a variety of skills or being the best at skills would technicaly be aproblem for any class, but the operative is both. An operative can easily be as good if not better at the party technomancer at computers and the mechanic at engineering. They have both the highest bonus and their class wide take 10 ability provides more functional bonus than any ability out there.
The class isn't really something you as an individual player can normally fix. But while (THE operative) is a skill catalog unto themselves, most of "the operativE you have in your party" is not. Usually there's a skill defeceit somewhere you can work yourself into.
Feel like this is kind of two separate issues. The witchwarper is definitely undertuned, but that's more its own separate concept.
The way skill bonuses work in SF kinda sucks though. The innate bonuses are too big of a deal and it sort of means if you don't get them it's very hard to be good with that skill.
In that respect, operatives are a problem because they get bonuses in whatever they want... but that also really just means they're the only class that can pick whatever skills they want to be good at, which almost feels more like a problem with every other class than with operatives.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take 10 is overrated as an Operative because it usually only applies to a couple of skills. If you have a hacker I see the party conflict, otherwise no. And Envoys are best at hard skill checks for the one to three skills they choose to focus on (out of the admittedly eight available), with the highest average and potential insight bonuses and rerolls easily available.
I agree with your point about the math. Maybe comparing Starfinder with other systems isn't really fair. I also agree that you are capable of supplementing the Soldier's Int/skills with feats and bonuses. But then you get into the realm of min/maxing or roleplay. Not all groups utilize the same amount of roleplay vs combat. Do I reduce my Soldier's combat capabilities so that I can compete with the classes that have better access to skills or should I remain the combat juggernaut so that I take the role I was meant for? The Skills route...One thing to keep in mind about the complaints of "lackluster" character options: Starfinder is designed from the ground up to run in a tighter range of math than 3.x/PF1. Apart from the operative (which is widely acknowledged as being better than pretty much any other class when it comes to skills*), classes are deliberately designed to stay at around the same effectiveness. Even a "non-specialist" (a class that doesn't automatically gain a bonus via class features) can, with a relatively small level of investment (theme, some advancements, one or two skills, possibly race), get within +5 of most specialists until very high levels.
*- other than some narrow exceptions focusing on one or two skills
Seems like any class with the Int key ability score + the operative overshadows everyone else when it comes to roleplay and skill checks. Last time I played a soldier in the group we did 70% roleplay and I was really bored. Anything I could do they could do far better.For a soldier, starting with a 12 (or 13) Int, throwing a couple +2 advancements at 5th, 10th, and/or 15th, and using a couple feats (since you're getting all of those bonus combat feats every even level) for Skill Synergy (to add more class skills) and Skill Focus (to add +3 on skill checks) would help you from being "really bored" vs. the "big, dumb fighter" stereotype with 10 Int, no advancements to Int, and no skill boost feats.
False dilemma. At 5th, 10th, and 15th level, you can increase four ability scores. Using one of the four on Int for some of those advancement in no way "reduce[s] my soldier's combat capabilities."
The theme should be selected for the abilities gained at 6th and 12th level (and possibly the one at 18th) and/or the +1 to a skill/making it a class skill and not the +1 to an ability score. The ability score generation method for Starfinder eliminates the "need" to have the +1 from the theme boosting the character's primary ability score.
The two feats (when a soldier is getting a feat every single level) can allow the soldier add two skills to their list of class skills (adding +3 to the skill check) and adds a +3 insight bonus to one skill. Basically, you're marginally less "powerful" in combat for a +3 to one skill and a +6 to another.
A korasha lashunta (+2 Str, -2 Wis, +2 Cha) works as a soldier, plus has Lashunta Magic (daze and psychonetic hand at will; detect thoughts 1/day), Limited Telepathy, and Student (+2 racial bonus to any two skills) as well. Even a vesk can contribute with Aid Another to help the specialist or by focusing on a couple skills based on abilities that they get a higher bonus from.
You're not "competing" with the other characters in the party. You're trying to make the party as a team be better.
There's going to be some give on take on combat vs. Skills.
I say skills and not role play because role play is orthogonal to skills. The bard going "I diplomance him for [[1d20+212]] " Is role playing far less that McBeardstein attempting to assist with "Oi Lad, Here. Ye got to try this batch. Fresh out of the barrel, its guaranteed to put hair on yer chest. Mostly cause we brewed it outta some kinda chia pet that grows hair..." [[1d20-2]]
But If you're maxing out combat ability you start with an 18 in your hitting ability, which (unless you're a technomancer landing spells) is not a major skills ability. Starting with a 16 instead to put 2 more points into int (for more/better skills) doesn't hurt much (its effectively + 1/2 to hit, since you'll be 1 better at levels 1-5 and 10-15 )
At level 3 you'll have the chance to buy a +2 stat booster, and this is an either combat or skills choice. This is where you'll get the gulf between someone having a skill and a true master of it.
Skill focus can keep you relevant until level 10+ even if you can't snag a scaling class bonus.
Take 10 is overrated as an Operative because it usually only applies to a couple of skills. If you have a hacker I see the party conflict, otherwise no. And Envoys are best at hard skill checks for the one to three skills they choose to focus on (out of the admittedly eight available), with the highest average and potential insight bonuses and rerolls easily available.
Technically the Operative Take 10 applies to as many skills as you have Skill Focus in. While it would hurt combat a little, by level 7 the operative could be able to Take 10 in around 6 different skills. If any of those are Computers or Engineering, you're going to be eating the Mechanic's lunch.
Just to expand on Aid Another:
It's a really low bar (DC 10 check) to add +2 to another character's roll. Just one skill rank in a class skill and a 12 in the relevant ability score gives a +5 on the aiding character's check (55% chance of success vs. DC 10); getting a +1 from a theme, a +2 from race, a +3 from Skill Focus, and/or investing a few more skill ranks can easily get you to a +9 (100% chance of success vs. DC 10, since there is no auto-fail on a 1 for skill checks).
So the combat monster who is "bad at skills" can still contribute. Just like the envoy that uses Get 'Em and a flare rifle for harrying fire contributes in combat. The combat monster may not "get the kill" on the skill check but they helped the other party member do so.